-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Royer [mailto:Doug(_at_)royer(_dot_)com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 4:14 PM
To: Hollenbeck, Scott
Cc: 'Dawson Frank (NMP/Irving)'; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
ietf-calendar(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Last Call: Date and Time on the Internet: Timestamps to
Proposed Standard
"Hollenbeck, Scott" wrote:
. ...
Yes, we should have a standard, but that standard should be
usable across
the IETF. In the provreg WG, we're using XML Schema to
specify a protocol
because XML and XML Schema provide needed extensibility
features. I can't
use 2445-compliant date-time format because XML Schema
won't accept it.
Now I am confused, one of the formats in that draft is without
dashes and spaces - then it is EXACTLY like RFC2445.
So how can XML Schema handle them then? It looks like the draft
is saying "this is the proposed standard including a version
that XML can not use".
True, the draft specifies a format that is exactly like the 2445 format.
That's good, it doesn't preclude the earlier work. It also specifies
another format (the "extended" format) that _does_ work with XML Schema. I
believe that's good as well.
So I would agree that there are different needs. That point
does not seem to persuade me that a 3rd format should also be
documented.
We can debate the merits (or detriments) of using non-IETF specified
technologies for IETF work, but that's not the issue at hand. The
Timestamps draft describes formats that can be used where
2445-format can't,
and at least in the case of the provreg WG that flexibility
is needed.
I also don't care if it is IETF or W3C work. I just don't see the
need to create a proposed standard this is mostly like ISO, kind
of like 2445, and you think would work with a (not yet?) recommended
W3C proposal. My point is - what's the point?
XML Schema is a W3C Recommendation as of 2 May 2001 (reference provided in
three parts below). It's being used in other IETF work. In that other work
I currently have to cite an ISO document as the normative date-time format
reference. I can cite the Timestamps draft if it becomes an RFC. I can't
cite 2445. Maybe citing an ISO document isn't a big deal, but I'd rather
cite a freely available RFC if I could.
-Scott-
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-0/
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/